"Kerry echoes Bush in making the case on WMD(s) in Syria. If
(he) talked like this in 2004, he would have been president."

Clear evidence showed another stolen election. Gore won in 2000. Kerry
won convincingly. They knew it. They stayed silent. Bush lost both times.
He got eight years in office.

Kerry "laid out the Obama Administration's most complete case
so far that Syria has used chemical weapons and why the world must respond,"
said Journal editors.

Bush and Blair "couldn't have said it better." He "made
a persuasive case."

"The evidence of the large-scale Syrian attack using sarin gas
on the Damascus suburbs on August 21 is substantial and from multiple,
layered sources."

False! No evidence exists. What's cited is fake. It's fabricated.
It's spurious. No hard facts support it. They don't exist. If they did,
Kerry would have explained.

The Obama administration released a summary of alleged evidence. It
was long on bluster. It was devoid of substance. There is none. Officials
can't cite what they don't have.

According to Kerry, said Journal editors:

"(E)vidence includes knowledge about Syria's chemical stockpiles
and their movement; testimony and symptoms from victims, medical personnel
and journalists; physiological samples that showed the presence of sarin;
and intelligence about the movement of Syrian troops before the attack,
as well as the timing of rocket launches that presumably carried the
chemical canisters."

"Mr. Kerry and the Administration (made) a compelling case against
the depredations of Bashar Assad and the need for a forceful world response,"
they said.

"What they haven't done is make a case that their military punishment
will be enough to match the magnitude of the harm and threat they describe."

What Journal editors don't due is support rule of law principles.
Might means right substitutes.

On August 30, Washington Post editors headlined "US must act against crimes against humanity,"
saying:

Obama "faces no easy options. (S)ome of his challenges ensue
from his mistakes."

"(N)o country other than the United States can or will respond
fittingly (to Syria's) crime against humanity."

"A line has been crossed; if there are no consequences, it will
be crossed again."

"Someday US soldiers on a battlefield could be the victim of
the resulting impunity."

"If the United States does not ensure that Syria faces consequences
for crossing the line, no one will, and the US response should be strong
enough to prevent Mr. Assad from committing further atrocities."

On Friday, Obama said: "A lot of people think something should
be done, but nobody wants to do it."

According to WaPo editors," he's "right to conclude that,
in such circumstances, the United States must."

Fact check

It bears repeating. No evidence links Syria to chemical weapons attacks
any time throughout months of conflict. It doesn't exist.

Washington signaled an attack is coming. It "won't inflict the
damage necessary to drive President Bashar Assad from power."

"There is no guarantee that the sort of operation the administration
is contemplating - the launching of cruise missiles from ships or submarines
- will deter Assad from resorting to chemical warfare in the future."

There's "a reason why the administration decided it must act."
Times editors didn't explain. They twisted things their way. They did
so duplicitously. It wasn't the first time. It won't be the last.

They claim attacking Syria assures deterring further chemical weapons
use. Failure to confront Assad encourages other countries to use them,
they say.

America uses chemical, biological and radiological weapons in all
its wars. Media scoundrels suppress it. So do LA Times editors.

"Now is the time for sharing the best intel available on the
use of chemical weapons and for reminding other governments - and American
citizens - that doing nothing, or next to nothing, would invite even
greater atrocities."

Tribune editors support lawless aggression. They want a clear case
made for waging it.

So do New York Times editors. They tried having things both ways. They headlined "Absent
on Syria."

On the one hand, they said Obama plans war "without legal justification
and without the backing of two key institutions, Congress and the United
Nations Security Council. Both have abdicated their roles in dealing
with this crisis."

On the other, they duplicitously claimed "no doubt" Assad
"was behind (the August 21 chemical) attack." Not a shred
of credible proves it. Times editors didn't explain.

They pronounced Assad guilty by accusation. They blamed him throughout
months of conflict for insurgent crimes. They did so unjustifiably.

They said Kerry and Obama "made a largely moral case for a retaliatory
response." They turned rule of law principles on their head saying
so.

They support attacking Syria. They want Obama doing it with international
support.

On Saturday, he made the case for war. He did so duplicitously. He wants Syria attacked. He plans to do
so. He'll seek congressional support.

At the same time, he claimed he "believe(s) (he has) the authority
to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization."

He has none whatever. He knows it. He didn't explain.

"We cannot and will not turn a blind eye to what happened in
Damascus," he said. At issue is only when he'll order bombs away.

With or without congressional support, it's lawless. No nation may
attack another except in self-defense. Syria threatens no one.

The Security Council alone decides on issues of war and peace. Circumventing
it is criminal. It's standard US practice. It's about to happen again.

Obama wants another imperial trophy. Mass killing and destruction
are small prices to pay.